Fedora Account System
Red Hat Associate
Red Hat Customer
SRPM URL: https://jcline.fedorapeople.org/python-social-auth-core-1.7.0-1.fc29.src.rpm Spec URL: https://jcline.fedorapeople.org/python-social-auth-core.spec Description: Python Social Auth is an easy to setup social authentication/registration mechanism with support for several frameworks and auth providers. This is the core component of the python-social-auth ecosystem, it implements the common interface to define new authentication backends to third parties services, implement integrations with web frameworks and storage solutions. Note: This is the same project as https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-social-auth, but it has been split into many separate projects/packages. Each package maps to a framework (flask, django, etc) so it's not possible to obsolete the old package with this package. The old package needs to be retired once this and all the subpackages have been accepted. FAS: jcline Scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=25989113
- Why do you BR python2-devel since it is a Py 3 only package? - There's some MIT code too: MIT/X11 (BSD like) ------------------ social-core-1.7.0/social_core/backends/azuread.py social-core-1.7.0/social_core/backends/azuread_b2c.py social-core-1.7.0/social_core/backends/azuread_tenant.py social-core-1.7.0/social_core/tests/backends/test_azuread.py social-core-1.7.0/social_core/tests/backends/test_azuread_b2c.py Add it to the license field. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== MUST items ===== Generic: [x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "BSD (3 clause)", "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "*No copyright* CC by (v3.0)", "Unknown or generated". 287 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/python- social-auth-core/review-python-social-auth-core/licensecheck.txt [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [-]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. [x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 2 files. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: Package installs properly. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package is included in %license. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Dist tag is present. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package does not use a name that already exists. [x]: Package is not relocatable. [x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local Python: [x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process. [x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should provide egg info. [x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python [x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel [x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [x]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [x]: Buildroot is not present [x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: python3-social-auth-core-1.7.0-1.fc29.noarch.rpm python-social-auth-core-1.7.0-1.fc29.src.rpm python3-social-auth-core.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US integrations -> integration, integration's, integration s python3-social-auth-core.noarch: E: zero-length /usr/lib/python3.6/site-packages/social_core/tests/requirements-base.txt python-social-auth-core.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US integrations -> integration, integration's, integration s 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 2 warnings
Hi, Thanks for the review. The python2-devel BR was from when I thought about doing a Python 2 package, I forgot to remove it. It's gone now. I've updated the license, as well. SRPM URL: https://jcline.fedorapeople.org/python-social-auth-core-1.7.0-2.fc29.src.rpm Spec URL: https://jcline.fedorapeople.org/python-social-auth-core.spec Koji scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=26008027
Package approved.
(fedrepo-req-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-social-auth-core